(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an opinion that clarifies the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court held that only certain causes of action here arose from protected speech. In the underlying dispute, a developer had sued the City of Carson and another developer in connection with negotiations about the possibility of building a National Football League stadium in the city.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a mayor had legislative immunity from claims that he scuttled a low‐income housing project because the prospective developer refused to hire his political ally as a contractor on the project. Affirmed judgment in favor of the mayor and the other defendants.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and building contractors, reversed the trial court's directed verdicts and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighboring business was time-barred from challenging a city's approval of an affordable housing project. Affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles could deny landowners' request for approval to undertake a large amount of grading on their parcel of land. Affirmed the denial of the landowners' request for writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a developer's due process and other claims against a city, a city manager and an engineering firm relating to alleged improprieties in the filing of a subdivision plat. Reversed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Struck down a portion of a city ordinance authorizing development impact fees for parks and recreation. Affirmed the lower court in relevant part, in this case involving California's Mitigation Fee Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a wrongful death lawsuit, revived a claim that a construction company's faulty road repairs resulted in icing that led to a fatal motor vehicle crash. Reversed a summary judgment ruling. Also, addressed a dispute regarding the existence of removal jurisdiction.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived Asian‐owned companies' claims that city employees discriminatorily enforced municipal building codes on the basis of race and personal animus. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an administrative ruling that terminated the Supplemental Security Income benefits of an individual who had received them since childhood for an intellectual disorder. The plaintiff disputed the medical evidence that the Social Security Administration relied on in concluding that he was no longer disabled after he turned age 18. Finding merit in his arguments, the First Circuit held that the record was insufficient to conclude he was no longer disabled.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit brought by a family receiving governmental housing assistance seeking to enjoin their landlord from evicting them. The landlord argued that he was permitted to evict a family that received enhanced vouchers from the federal government once their lease expired. Rejecting the landlord's position, the Third Circuit held en banc that enhanced voucher holders may not be evicted absent good cause, even at the end of a lease term. The panel reversed summary judgment for the landlord and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that an individual who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was not entitled to them because he was not disabled by bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits had no absolute right to pose questions to a government-employed medical consultant who reviewed his medical file and assessed his physical limitations. Instead, the right to such questioning depends on a case-by-case assessment of the need for cross-examination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a man with a back injury, rejecting his contention that the ALJ improperly discounted his treating physician's opinion and discredited his own testimony. Affirmed the district court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the prison sentence of a defendant who pleaded guilty to wire fraud for defrauding the Veterans Administration regarding the extent of his service‐related injuries.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a benefit applicant's claim that he was entitled to Social Security disability based on a degenerative back condition. Held that the administrative law judge failed to support her decision to discount the treating neurosurgeon's opinion. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration committed an error in denying disability benefits to a former hair stylist suffering from a host of medical problems, including degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia. The ALJ should have acquired a medical expert to review a consequential MRI report. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Social Security Act's 25 percent cap on attorney fees applies only to fees for court representation. The lower court erroneously applied the cap to the aggregate fees awarded for representation before both the agency and the court. Justice Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split regarding the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation. The decision relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a man's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with whether he could perform his former job as a school bus monitor. Vacated the district court's judgment and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a woman's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue related to whether her bipolar disorder and other conditions limited her concentration, persistence and pace. Vacated and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the Social Security Administration's decision that an applicant was not entitled to disability insurance benefits because she was not disabled. Affirmed the district court's decision.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a disabled child was not entitled to retroactive social security disability payments for the first year of his life, before his mother applied for assistance. Also held that social security laws may constitutionally bar benefits before application.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the denial of a man's application for unemployment insurance benefits. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a civilly committed sexually violent predator could be required to pay for GPS monitoring or else face criminal prosecution, even though his sole income was Social Security. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling in a case involving a now-repealed Texas law.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a hospital waited too long to file an administrative appeal challenging a reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements. Affirmed that the filing was untimely.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.